HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-03-PBC-min S,77SR^�h0 TOWN OF LEXINGTON
x ° Permanent Building Committee
Q 'zv D
Permanent Members
APRIL i4'"
Co-Chairman: Jon Himmel & Co-Chairman Dick Perry
fix'"6`� Philip Coleman, Charles Favazzo, Carl Oldenburg,Peter Johnson, Howard Hobbs
Project Specific Members
Hastings Elementary Fire Station Visitors Center LCP
Curt Barrentine Robert Cunha Joel Berman Hank Manz
Andrew Clarke Joseph Sirkovich Peter Kelly Teresa Wilson
IDecernbeir 3, 201.97:00"x:00 I1:1II
Members Present: Jon Himmel, Dick Perry, Philip Coleman, Charles Favazzo
DPF Staff: Mike Cronin/Director of Public Facilities, Mark Barrett
Also Present: Mark Corr, Mark Sandeen, Todd Rhodes
6:10 PM- Meeting was called to order— 201 Bedford Street, Room 221
IRed bist: Discussion
............................................................................................................................
Jeff MI of Fenton Architects and Macie� I< of New I cology presented me d information on they Red List.
It was reported to they cc::7rr rnittee that Fectc:n and New Ecology (NEI) had a rneeting with another
architect that has cc::7onpu este d a Ibuikfi og that has been certified as cc::7rnpE pant with they Living Buikfi og
e nge Red List. Fhey inforrned the design tears on a process to achieve C Ornp lance. It was
discussed that every product Coes not need to me'e't the criteria of Red List che'rnicaIl free, but that
a docurne me d effort needs to be rnaintaine d. F'or products that are not in cOrV`p�lance, either
a ternative me t o s or materials shall e e'.rnp oye", and if it cannot rV`VC"et the required design
criteria or pe'rforrnance then a stater est shaVV be rf1ade to quaffy why said rnate'riaIl w0�Il not
cornpVy.
[Ire'rV`VOurn costs were aso discussed. It was noted that the costs can increase by approxirnatdy 10%
of construction. rec:ton was hesitant about this claire and NII stated that they fed the approach
wo C increase construction cost by approxir`Vate y 2% with aro increase in fee for fdIl cOrnp lance'..
The design te'arf➢ was not aUe to definitively confirm this untVV the scope of cOrV`p�lance was fdy
understood and the charge to pursue was approved by the [1130.. Once the approach was agreed to
the design te'arn would prepare a prC7posaIl to perform this scope of work.
It was discussed that Red List free and Red List cOrV`p�iant were not the same thing and that it was
ornpr::7IbaUe to be Red List free. 17art of they issue is that wMe product A may be Red List free, puUic
bidding Iaw requires the specifications to Iist 3 e quaK If there are not 3 e quaIl products that are
Red List free, then they product will be in vuc::7Vatuc:n of Massachusetts puUic; (bidding Iaw. They design
te'arn agreed that if this instance occurs then a docurne nt wVVV be produced iVhj>trating that such a
product cannot corV`p�y and wVVV state the reason. This rne'thoddogy is required by the Living
Bu ikfing C:haVVe nge for cc::7rnpE iance with they Red List.
NII rooted that there is a databases of 10,000 u rnaterVa st ..at have been &eady certified as
cc::7rnpE pant with they Red List. They design tearn wuVV utihze that databases as they Ibu iki they ou fline
specifications during I...)e sign I...)e've'VC)prne nt. It was noted that the chaVVe nge is not on the known
201 BEDFORD STREET• LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420
products, but those that have not been preOmAy certffied. Ns is where the bdk of research wdll
be requured.
It was aso darffied that if the is no equ�vaent product wuth regards to spedfic rnaterall
perforrnance (exarnpe &en for KevVar and resn bukt resMant waH pan0ng) then that rnaterU
wdll be conskiered exernpt frorn the Red Ust and not affect the budcfings cornpance wuth al-Mng
Budcfing ChaHenge approach.
It was noted that a locall precedent was the Kern Center at I larnpsNre CoHege.
N[d presented a Et of approaches for conskieraflon to the corm-rdttee.
1) Just do the research. They budcfing wdll be constructed usng convenflonall rnaterUs and
technques and the desg tearn wdll document wNch rnaterUs are cornpHant wuth the
Red Ust and wNch rnaterUs are not.
2) Set a budget cap. Ns wdll set a budget to Am for lncreased costs to have spedfic
rnaterUs that traciffionAy wodd not cornpg y repaced wuth rnaterUs that do. They cost
cfifferences wdll be tracked and lf we but a pre de ten-rdned threshoki then wdll not pursue
ackfiflonall rnaterUs if they negaflvdy lrnpact the progect budget.
3) Urrflt cornpVuance to the rnost lrnpactfull cfi0suons for the end use of the budcfing
(envdope, furntune, fun she Ns rnethoddogy wodd ld<dy lgnore re quurernents for
product rnanufacture and end of Irfe cfisposaL
4) Fu H cornpHance wuth the UOng Bu dcfing ChaHenge Red Ust. (It was noted that Ns
opflon wodd ld<dy lncrease the schedde to produce Ud docurnents.)
Mark S. darffied that the prk-nary ob�ecflve of the poky was to focus on the he and safety of
the I,,..)ulIdIng?'s occul.)aints., I herefore, We should focus on theinterlor Ilving enviromment forernost.
Other characterVsflcs of rnaterUs were cfiscussed for conskieraflon as wd, such as the
characterVsflc of budcfing rnaterUs when subected to fire. Ns is to reduce harm to occupants
fledng a budcfing lf lt caught fire as wd as lk-rdflng rusk to the fire fighters who wdll have to enter
the budcfing ln order to exflnguush a fire.
It was cfiscussed that spedficaflon cfi0sVons 4, 7, 1) and 12 have the rnost lrnpact on the lndoor
enOronrnent and the cfirecflon was then &en to proceed wuth cornpVuance for Nv 4, 7, 1) and
12. Refer to the approach at the end of Ns document for darfficaflon.
It was asked how we pan to deall wuth other rnater4s outskie of the sdected cfi0sVons, for
exarnpe, Iughflng, fire protecflon, HVAC. They des�gn tearn wdll utMze the database for these
rnaterUs and wdll avoki products that cc: ntrubute to poor IACD,fIndoor Aur QuAtyjl and the lnterVor
enOronrnent. We wdll Aso rr4ntan thoughtfull des�gn techn0ques, for exarnpe, not locaflng ar
lntakes new the generator or near non red Et roofing rnaterUs.
They des�gn tearn agreed to aso rr4ntan a rnatrOx of part 2 of the spedficaflons to ldentrfy what
corTil'.)Iled and What dld1l't With reason Why. I Ills can 1,,..)e used L.)y the 101 (Fown of Lexungton) for
future proects as a bas0ne In Ns process.
C'Ms S noted that even Red Lust cornpUnt budcfings wdll ld<dy have non cornpUnt rnaterUs as part
of thdr construcflon.
PBC Meeting 12.03.19 2
N/Hke C:further darffied that the Ianguage for the Red Ust under the FOL (Fawn of Lexungton)
SustaOnaUHty goAs Os to s t..rl V..e..for cornp�Oance. It Os therefore not a definffive requOrernent for fuH
cornp�Oance.
Matt S stated that Ns wHII requore rnore coorcfinaflon woth our spedficaflon wroter and that we wHII
need to engage her ea6er On the process that we tracfiflonaHy wouH. rhe desOgn Learn anfldpates
that we wHII have a draft rnatrux fled to the spedficaflons around the rn0cfle of I.)esugn
Deveoprnent. r o0y cfi0suon that wHII not be cfiscussed untH a Iater date us cfi0suon 12, furnLure.
these s6ecflons wHII not need to be made untH the buHcfing us under construcflon. We wHII track
these rnaterUs separat6y and cornUne onto a finaIl report that wHII be part of the cc: nstrucflon
doseout docurnentaflon.
CONCLUSION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITTH RED LIST COMPLIANCE
Red List Process
Objective: To maximize the health and well-being of the building occupants of the proposed Police Station
project.
Approach:
The Consultant Team will take their normal specification and make it project specific thus establishing
the Baseline specification for all divisions of the project.
The Baseline Specification for the project will then be checked against the-Red List Database to
illustrate what materials are compliant as currently specified. If a material is not compliant, the
consultant team will see if the list offers a suggested alternate material that will allow for
compliance. In both cases anticipated impacts to performance, resilience or budget will be
reported for review to DPF, PBC and the Integrated Design Team.
1 —The Consultant team will pay particular attention with the following divisions; 4— Masonry, 7,
Thermal envelope and sealants, 9 — Finishes, and 12 Furnishing, as these divisions are anticipated to
have the most impact on the building occupants. If any materials within these divisions are not listed in
the Red List database, we will look for alternative solutions and / report if we cannot comply for a
specific product.
2—The next threshold to investigate would be any materials known to have impact to the interior
environment that are outside of the 4 divisions referenced above.
3 —The Consultant Team will create a matrix summary of materials and findings for the Town's future
use on other projects.
4—The Consultant
will review the Town of Lexington's Sustainability Plan list of chemicals that are to be excluded from the
project as well as other suggested State resources that are referenced in the Towns Policy.
PBC Meeting 12.03.19 3
.5 e.o. ..-.-.tJh.e r r.v.).a..!! DJ s..c u..s sJP n.
NII cfistrbated a proect evAuaflon sustaOnabMty report (refer to the attacheci report at the encs of
Ns ciocurnent)
Ns out neci that the Grounci Source I-leat [lurnp (GSI 11[l) or Geo therrnaIl wouki have an
approxk-nate Oncrease 0n upfront cost of$600,000 over ar source VRF wuth a net Oncrease of
$300,000 over a 25 year perioci.
It was stateci by NIF'I that the GSI ll[l wouki have kmer ernVssVons than the aVr source VRF because
there us Vss of an OectrucaIl k)aci requreci. C'Ms S darffieci that ut wouki not rnake a cfifference snce
the FOL utMzes green energy crecfits for the rnunudpaIl Lino frog Fherefore, the ernussons for each
systern wouki be zero.
N/lark S askeci what factors were useci for the CO[l. NI""I b0eveci we useci 5 for the GSI ll[l anci 7 for
the ar source VRF, but wM neeci to confirrn those. NI I aso noteci that the factors useci were baseci
on rnociOng the bukfing as net zero. N/lark S saki that NII shouki run the cakuaflons as both net
zero anci non net zero.
A concern about the a�r source VRF �s the nose assodateci wuth the conciensng unu ts. If the FOL
Oects to move forward wuth that opflon then the ciesgn tearn wM neeci to take nose Onto
conskieraflon when �ayout out the equ#-nent.
C'Ms S anci NI""I corm-nenteci that there as no difference an equaprnent anskie the bukfing.. ..The o0y
cfifference 0s the wells anci purnps for GSIHI[l (Grounci Source Heat [lurnp) versus the eater" or
conn eV unV ts. Fhere are stM purnps anci cornpressors.
It was noteci that the GSI ll[l 0s a rnore resMent systern because the wells wM Vast for 501 years, whHe
the fans on the ar source VRF cone eV unV ts have a 15 year Ue expectancy.
Baseci on Ns Onforrnaflon a cfiscusson was heki arounci utMzOng the cieka 0n costs for these systerns
to enhance the bukfings overall resMency.
Nett S to coorcfinate wuth the rnechanu call en&eer what can be cione to enhance the resMency of
the a source VRF, (refer to the email from Brach Park at the end of this documentforclorificotion).
The FOL wM get the ciesg tearn unforrnaflon on the GSIHI[l at the I lasflngs SchooIl for cornparson of
efficacy anci cost.
It was noteci that aVr source VRF(VaraNe Reffigerant How) was not an opflon for the I lasflngs
SchooIl ciue to the bukfing szee anci s>zee of sorne of the Varger roorns. Fhe VRF systern wouki be
pracflcaIl for the [loke I IQ,anci 0s a corm-non I IVAC system for Ns type anci sze of pro�ect.
Aug ackfiflonaIl resMent factor for the GSI ll[l 0s that the ciesgn capadty wM allow the systern to
perforrn better on extreme weather ciays that are beyond the ciesgn. For exarnp� e, Of the systern 0s
ciesgneci for ternperatures between 0 100*F anci there 0s a clay where the ternperature 0s I..O*F,
then the GS[II I wM be aNe to rr4ntan the onteroor bukfing ternperature better than then ar
source\/[U. It WOUH not 1,,..1e so extreme that the\/[U::: systern WC)Ulkint '.)erfonrn, [DUt We WOUH
anfldpate that the systern wouki prociuce an Onteror enOronrnent of 65*F when the occupants are
caMng for 68*F.
PBC Meeting 12.03.19
A cfiscuss0on was Aso hdd based on the wO fidd desogn and capacoty. A rnerno was re0ewed that
S11MA/ed 30 Wells With a load of 28 tons. It Was stated that at 5(.0' We should 1,,..)e designing at 3 tons
per wO. Thus Iead to a cfiscussuon that we may be aUe to reduce the number of w0s by hAf thus
akWng for the costs between the 2 system to be negVogUe.
See below for Clarifications from 1213 meeting with regards to the Geothermal System.
Fhe next secflon of thus document darffies and detaoVs the approach and process for the cornpVoance
woth the Red Lost and on finAzong a system sdecflon for the I]VAC equ#-nent.
Geothermal Summary
*Pending review of well data from Hastings school and confirmation on well design loads the Permanent
Building Committee (PBC) approved the design team to proceed with the following recommendation
(PBC final recommendation scheduled at the next meeting on 12/12/19:
This also requires o recommendation to the Board of Selectmen (BOS)for final approval on 12116119
The committee tentatively approved to move forward with the air source VRF and to utilize a responsible
portion of the difference in cost for Geothermal for appropriate resiliency considerations to the design,
electrical system and HVAC system.
Additional information required for a final decision to be rendered are as follows:
1) —Town of Lexington to get the design team data on the Hastings School geothermal capacity and
efficiency.
2) — New Ecology to clarify the Life Cycle duration used to calculate the cost comparisons between
air source VRF and GSHP.
3) — New Ecology to generate a comparison of capital replacement costs over the life expectancy of
the geothermal well field.
4) — Design team to is generate a list of comparisons on the two systems with regards to their
intrinsic resiliency characteristics.
It was noted that both systems will meet and /or exceed the Town of Lexington sustainability standards
and that the determination for selection is predominantly based on resiliency and cost.
Clarifications from 12/3 meeting with regards to the Geothermal System
Geothermal well field capacity and design.
It was stated by the design team that the well field is comprised of 30 wells at 28 tons. The potential to
reduce the well field by half was discussed based on the presumed design capacity of the Hastings School
at 3 tons per well instead of 2 ton as noted in the Police HQ narrative.
This was not a correct statement. Matt S clarified with the Engineer of Record (EOR) that the designed
cooling load for the building is 68 tons and the heating load is 78. This would equal approximately 2.5
tons per well. Pending a test well to prove the potential well field's efficacy we cannot come to a final
determination of how many wells may be eliminated. However, the EOR stated that at best, and under
ideal circumstances, we may be able to eliminate 1 or 2 wells. That would not equal the savings needed
to level to initial costs for geothermal versus air source VRF.
PBC Meeting 12.03.19 5
The EOR is also providing a brief narrative on redundancies in the design for the HVAC systems and what
can be enhanced to further their resiliency.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM
Future rneeflng schecfiAe/ deacffines:
12/12 rneeflng wuth [IBC to surnrnaruze SI package and proOde cVarfficaflons where requured frorn
the foftWng notes for approvA to present to the Board of Se�ectrnen (BOS).
12/16 rneeflng wVth the BOS to approve Fecton to proceed wVth the current desgn Onto DesOgn
Devek)prnent.
PBC Meeting 12.03.19 6